ATC contact on EFATO?
 

Is it a legal requirement for an aircraft having suffered an engine failure on T/O, and routing straight ahead, to call ATC before departing the SID?
As an example, if departing STN on Rwy 22 and climbing straight ahead to 20nm to hold, with LTN and LHR airspace possibly being compromised, at what stage would ATC expect the aircraft to call them?
Thanks

If I'd suffered an engine failure,(unless in a B-52) I wouldn't intend to continue straight ahead for 20 miles (not clear if that is what you meant). I'd be making immediate contact with the tower on a mayday for an immediate return.

As the pilot in command, you'd fly the aircraft as the first priority, then navigate and communicate comes last.

Which means you can do that in all cases of emergencies. You can even swing around and land the aircraft without calling ATC......

Sure, someone will probably ask you why you didn't communicate afterwards, but if you deem that you were too busy...... noone would bat an eye.

Short answer No. But it makes sense to let them know at the earliest opportunity, preferably before you depart the SID.

If we bang one...
 

In the US, ATC don't know what your Engine Out procedure is. You are, by definition using Emergency Authority. Climbing straight out of ATL for example, and not following the SID. Chances are they've seen you're having a bad day, but any coms are 'time permitting'.

This.

You obviously must not let the communicating get in the way of the aviating but I can certainly think of one or two places in the States where it might be a very good idea to let ATC if you plan on climbing straight ahead instead of performing the initial turn (e.g. most of the JFK 31 left departures)…..

Even our magnificent boys in blue aren't that quick.....

As a tower ATCO I’d maybe know there’s an issue before you tell me or deviate from the SID just based on what the aircraft is doing, but aviate/navigate/communicate is always expected. If PNF has a moment, a quick “Mayday c/s engine fire - Standby” sort of call could be helpful to highlight potential separation issues, clear the runway and get the emergency services there more quickly, but it’s quite likely all of that would be happening even if you said nothing.

I doubt there’s any such legal requirement anywhere. But in my experience the policy changes from airline to airline, with some training depts strongly suggesting a call to ATC if you’re going to do something unexpected (like an Emergency Turn) while other airlines trainers had a fit of apoplexy if you dared touch the transmit button after an EFATO. Personally I have always considered it prudent to make a BRIEF call stating the situation and intentions firmly ending with the word STANDBY. But I’m sure the fundamentalists here will be on to harangue me for that. The inconsistencies across this industry have always made me laugh. What’s law here is heresy there. Always merely the result of some personal preference of an egotistical head of training.

Incidentally- funny anecdote - the last airline I flew for had the ‘don’t dare touch that transmit button’ policy, so in the Sim, when the TRI did his ATC thing and asked me about my holding intentions, I refused to reply. He got rather upset. I told him afterward I was carrying out company policy and concentrating on completing my hold join and climb to MSA. I had declared an Emergency, and I own the sky.

We all know they play that ‘let’s hurry it up’ game when it suits them, and that was the deal. But the point was made. He backed down.
Such hypocrisy. Negative training abounds.

At STN, getting airborne and then doing a 180 to land would cause a lot of eyes to be batted!

From experience it's not a great idea to tell ATC before you're really on top of the engine failure e.g. flying, profile, checklists etc - from a few experiences around the world as soon as you mention it to ATC you can expect many, many interruptions for information requests, even if you say "standby" etc.

During my ATC training at the College of ATC, Hurn, the standard phrase was 'turn the shortest way onto (reciprocal of your outbound track) and advise direction of turn'.
On the one occasion I heard during an actual incident, the pilot replied 'f**k the turns just get me back on the ground'.

[QUOTE=70 Mustang;11105480]Yes, from my experience - which, of course, might be different from yours. Had 12 engine failures in 10 years, a couple off the runway, on wide bodies for a large, well known, high quality, international airline - in many regions, "my experience", after the mayday, was that questions came in rapid fashion despite multiple requests for them to standby.

PS the airline had excellent maintenance but RB211s, Trents etc had their moments through the years that required redesign.

On the A320, the primary job of the PF until 400 feet is to establish a proper flight path, trim the rudder and engage the autopilot. By the time this is all done and the AP is on, you're reaching 400 feet. Pull HDG, ask the PM to activate the secondary flight plan if relevant. After that, the PF takes communication so that the PM can focus on the ECAM. And that seems to be when most would call ATC.

The rationale I was given for this back in the day was that the order of priority of tasks is "fly, navigate, communicate, manage, monitor". "Fly" is establishing the correct flight path until AP on. "Navigate" is HDG, secondary if necessary. The ECAM actions fall under "manage". An engine flameout is not a fire, it does not bear the same degree of time criticality. The few seconds used for the ATC call before the ECAM actions won't matter much on the grand scheme of things. In the sim, most of the time this call and the ECAM actions until the "Engine secured" callout take about as much time as it takes to reach the OEI acceleration altitude, if not less.